SHEIKH SAMI Vs. AHFAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment-decree dated 15.7.2003, passed by I ADJ, Chhindwarain C.A. No. 12-A/2000 affirming the judgment-decree dated 15.2.2000 passed by I Civil Judge Class II, Chhindwara in C.S. No. 15-A/97, tenant-defendant-appellant has preferred this appeal u/s 100 CPC.

(2.) DEFENDANT / appellant is a tenant of plaintiff/respondent's in suit house No. 121/1-121/2, Ward No. 26, Chhindwara, fully described in map attached with the plaint. Plaintiff/respondent instituted C.S. No. 15-A/97 seeking eviction u/s 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act on the ground that the suit house is bona fide required for their own residence and that there is no other alternative suitable accommodation in the city.

(3.) PW 1 Mujeeb Ahamd has stated that he is residing in a rented house. The family consists of three school going children. He himself is in government service and the suit house is bona fide required by him for residence of school going children. Ahfaj Ahamed, plaintiff No. 1 is in government service at Seoni. He also wishes to keep his family in Chhindwara in the suit house. The other brother plaintiff No. 2 Iftekhar Ahamed also used to come to Chindwara and the suit house is bona fide required for his stay.' Daughter of plaintiff Habeeb Ahamed is studying in Girls College in Chhindwara. At present she is staying with her grand parents and on vacation of suit house she will stay therein with other family members. PW 1 Mujeeb Ahamed in cross-examination has stated that the other house in their possession is in a very dilapidated condition and is not fit for human residence. This statement of PW 1 Mujeeb Ahamed is fully supported by PW 2 Iftekhar Ahamed, PW 3 Mohd Sadiq. There is nothing in the statement of D.W. 1 Shekh Sami that what has been stated by these witnesses is incorrect. It is admitted by this witness D.W. 1 that plaintiff PW 1 Mujeeb Ahamed is residing at Chhindwara and the two brothers respectively are living at Seoni and village Ilehara. PW 1 Mujeeb Ahamed has specifically stated that the suit house is bona fide required for residence of family members of the plaintiff-respondent. There is no other suitable accommodation in the city. 4. Critically examining the evidence aforesaid, the Civil Judge held that the bona fide need of the plaintiff/respondent has been proved. Therefore, vide judgment dated 15.2.2002 decreed the suit for eviction u/s 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The first appellate Court agreeing with the aforesaid finding of fact, dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 15.7.2003. The concurrent finding of facts aforesaid is neither perverse nor illegal. No substantial question of law, therefore, arises in this appeal for determination.